Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-04-04
I'd EDITION.
--latest kilograms to The Star.
THE TELEPHONE LITIGATION.

THE TELEPHONE LITIGATION.
Judge Cole Denies Defendants Motion
for Leave To Demur to the Bill ana
To Plead Matters i'm Defense.
Special Dispatch to THE EVENING STAR
BOSTON, April 4-Judge Cole of the Q. q. Circuit
Court, sent down an opinion In the great case OF
the United States VS.. The American Bell Telephone
Company, to test the validity OF the Bell patent,
9enylng tne motion OF the defendant for leave 10
tense.
The court, in its opinion, says: 'sThe defendant
moves 1or leave to file demurrer to the whole Dill,
and, at the same time, several pleas. Equity rule
80 sprov1des that the defendant may at any
time before the the bill is taken for
confessed or afterward, with the leave OF court,
lemuf 10 part plead, part and answer to the resi-
Que" The court then reviews the cases cited In
support OF the motion by the defendant, and says:
but all theSe defenSeS must clearly re1er 10
separate and distinct parts of the bill, for the de-
iendant cannot plead to that part OF the bill to
a Mm ne mas already demurred OF pleaded s1e
whether he shall make any answer
and the plea whether he shall make any other
"t assuming the power of the court to grant the
motion now asked for upon which am not en-
slreiy Tree from doubt am clear i should not be
and TO prevent injustice"
-, me defendant asks leave to file demurrer to
1ae WnOle Dill, raising the question OF the power
IL,
70 test the equities OF the bill. These two sub
Jects may properly be raised by demurrer,
ana IN the orderly course of procedure in equity
the demurrer would be first flied and heard. The
demurrer would determine whether the bill Is
WlthOuI authority or not. The defendant
also asks leave at the same time to plead or
10 NE several pleas for the following accounts:
1t IS said that the bill refers to the litigation
previously had with reference to the scope and
sadlty OF the patents in controversy, but that it
does not state the results Of such litigation the
decls1ons therein or that the questions Of fact or
HueSslohs ol law which ought to be raised by this
Dill nave been argued before the Supreme Court
IN SUITS for Infringement Of these patents
ae now no held I'D. under Amusement by that
proper course Is to plead the same
1t follows that the fact relating to prior litigation
reports IN inns motion, and the considerations Of
the saving OF time, labor and expense, while they
might De urged, as suggested by the plaintiff as a
ground for continuance OF the case, afford,
for granting this motion, nor do / think
the failure OF the bill to state the con-
tents of the written communication or
the rules of the Patent-Of1ce, referred to
IN the Dill as sufficient reason for allowing
tne defendant to plead, and at the same
Time LIME, demur the whole bill, souch a
course being contrary to well-estabiished rules
OF equity pleading. In course OF this mag
nitude it seems to me the ends OF JUS
tice are more likely to be reached by
loloWlhS The regular and ordinary procedure
OIL courts OF equity, and that the court should hest
tate unless from grave consideration, to depart
therefrOm."
The motion is denied. George A. jerks, solic-
1tor general; George NJ. StearnS district attorney;
Jcn Chandler, John GOOde and VIM. c. Straw
bridge Tor the United States; Chauncy smith
anu y. d. StOrrOW for the defendant.